MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7071239047

From Sanctuary to Abolition: migrant justice organizing in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Ottawa

2022· other· en· W7071239047 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsSolidarityEconomic JusticeWork (physics)Service (business)Value (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this dissertation I examine the politics, policies, and practices of sanctuary in Canada. Specifically, I offer the first comprehensive account of how migrant justice activists have understood and approached the work of building sanctuary cities in Toronto, Vancouver, Montréal, and Ottawa. I show how migrant justice activists have been crucial actors in the development and implementation of sanctuary policies and practices in Canada, despite being largely ignored in scholarly literature on the topic. Beyond an analysis of the rich grassroots theories and strategic practices that activists have developed over two decades, I discern and theorize two fundamental approaches activists have taken to building sanctuary cities: demanding "sanctuary from above" and cultivating "sanctuary from below." Both approaches seek to increase access to services for precarious and non-status migrants, but differ in their theory of change and in practice. On the one hand, demanding sanctuary from above seeks to increase access to services by pressuring municipal governments and public service institutions to adopt sanctuary or "access without fear" policy reforms. On the other, building sanctuary from below prioritizes working directly with frontline service providers, advocates, and migrant communities to secure localized access to services, build networks of mutual aid, and cultivate a culture of solidarity with and among precarious and non-status migrantswith or without the presence of a formal sanctuary policy. I find that both approaches contain common potentials and limits that are traceable across the four cities included in this study. I argue that each approach can hold strategic and tactical value in different circumstances, but also note that the sanctuary from below approach appears to hold more potential to achieve the kinds of long-term social transformation that migrant justice activists are committed to achieving. I conclude by theorizing an abolitionist approach to sanctuary organizing. I combine elements of Black liberation, abolitionist, anti-colonial, and no borders scholarship to construct framework to both evaluate past sanctuary policies and practices, as well as offer a radical agenda for future sanctuary organizing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.158 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)French-language works237,207